Overall, the site is shaping up well, and good to see Des'
stuff is back up again (the small amount I briefly
checked). Overall, I'd be pretty pleased to have such a
site, but being the critical kind (though in a nice way
where I can!), have observed a few things with some
corrections to suggest.
--- David Parenteau <kitfox_at_firstlight.net> wrote:
> >I'd remark that it looked like there's significant
> >time invested into the various shots of the sexy mascot
Feel free to comment, that's what the forum is for, but
keep your criticism constructive and play nicely and we
should all have a good time. *glares around the forum*
> Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Oversized issue,
> both Data-wise and Pixel-wise. ... so won't fit on
> 1024x768, which is the largest average size.
Didn't notice not fitting, since I run at 800x600, so
assumed the scrolling was from that, but I agree is a good
idea to fit onto a 1024x768 screen fitment.
Few points with the collation of the main page picture in
regard to lighting and focal analysis (since I get grilled
on it in class, I'm now very conscious of it!). Our
attention grabbing cheetah looks very nice, but the light
sources are wrong for the framing. The two spotlights
behind throw forward shadows (look at the wall above her
head), yet the lighting on her suggests flat tones. :-/
Even the use of a strong camera flash would not give the
result we see in this situation, as there is no background
light spillage from the flash. I'd probably use an
artificial light source (like using a camera flash) from
the viewer to re-accentuate the character and wall shadows,
as dulling down her face to make it correct for the current
light sources (even if there is one in the 'street') would
detract attention and picture focus.
In regard to focus, our cheetah is somewhat soft (out-of)
focus (being hand drawn, you get that...) where as the
digital background is very sharp (in-focus). Unfortunately
this is exactly the opposite focus targets required for the
application. Backgrounds are not usually razor sharp and
the nearer subject should not be outfocussed in comparison,
especially since things at the same 'depth' in the picture
as sharper than she is.
> In testing, I was able to reduce the
> current image to around 200K for such a purpose with no
> notable decrease in visual quality,
If you soften the background to correct focus, you may be
able to get away with even more compression, saving even
more space.
In the artist gallery page, the focus is incorrect again
for her arms versus the wall, making the depth appear in
correct. Also appears that she is lying 'in' the wall as
opposed to on it.
I was thinking that the 'title' pages for Des and Joe could
use characters that 'wink' occasionally, for something
novel, as has been discussed her previously. Looks funky
having a character on the page that appears to 'randomly'
wink at you. ie, long delay between winks...
Despite my gripes, the page is shaping up well, and I'll be
among the throng eager to see more as it is released. :-)
May free time find you some time soon, Jim!
Scrapper, Black Dragon, criticising, but not unappreciative.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Received on Tue Dec 02 2003 - 19:56:51 CST